https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113563 Where the assessee was not entitled to exemption during the disputed period, duty already paid for that period could not be adjusted against the later confirmed demand, because the enhanced exemption limit applied only from 27-4-1989 and the earlier clearance limit was not satisfied. The demand nevertheless had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, since the sale realization was treated as inclusive of duty and appropriate duty deduction was required from the gross price. The CESTAT thus maintained the duty confirmation on the adjustment issue while directing limited requantification on the cum-duty issue. en-us Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 May 2012 17:51:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113563 Where the assessee was not entitled to exemption during the disputed period, duty already paid for that period could not be adjusted against the later confirmed demand, because the enhanced exemption limit applied only from 27-4-1989 and the earlier clearance limit was not satisfied. The demand nevertheless had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, since the sale realization was treated as inclusive of duty and appropriate duty deduction was required from the gross price. The CESTAT thus maintained the duty confirmation on the adjustment issue while directing limited requantification on the cum-duty issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113563